The whole body archon concept reminds me of William Reich’s work and his concept of body armouring. He theorised that if we constantly try and repress emotions (especially negative ones) they become ‘trapped’ in the bodies tissue.
For instance trying to be a ‘big boy’ and stifling the crying reflex is fine once or twice but if it becomes a habit it produces tension in the jaw, or always trying to control your anger causes constantly held shoulder tension. Working on these habitual tensions often releases these emotions (bodywork like Rolfing comes from a similar source).

I wonder with the Archons being attributed to negative emotions that maybe they were working with something of a similar concept, by naming and working on a body part you increase your proprioception of it, beginning to notice habitual tension patterns and the associated negative feelings that those patterns bring up (Archon’s). At some point these may ‘release’ with a burst of held emotion thus removing or controlling the archon’s hold over that aspect of your body/mind.

I went through some neo-reichian therapy last year and I can attest to the effectiveness of this approach. I’m now very aware of how certain mental states are reflected by tension patterns in my body and how consciously relaxing them has an effect on my mind.

Of course, it is stated in many texts of Buddhism that there is no self, that all things are empty, there is just the skandhas etc. This is one major difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, anatman and atman (self and no-self). But then there is the Mahaparinirvana sutra, which is a Mahayana scripture which allegedly contains the Buddha’s final explanation of his doctrine. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about it:

“Much of the central focus of the Nirvana Sutra falls on the existence of the salvific Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature, Buddha element, or Buddha principle), also called the Tathagatagarbha (”Buddha-matrix” or “Buddha embryo”), in every sentient being (animals included - hence the Buddha’s strong support for vegetarianism in this sutra), the full seeing of which ushers in Liberation from all suffering and effects final deliverance into the realm of Great Nirvana (maha-nirvana). This “True Self” or “Great Self” of the nirvanic realm is said to be sovereign, to be attained on the morning of Buddhahhood, and to pervade all places like space. The Buddha-dhatu is always present, in all times and in all beings, but is obscured from worldly vision by the screening effect of tenacious negative mental afflictions (kleshas) within each being (the most notable of which are greed, hatred, delusion, and pride). Once these negative mental states have been eliminated, however, the Buddha-dhatu is said to shine forth unimpededly and the Buddha-sphere (Buddha-dhatu/ visaya) can then be consciously “entered into”, and therewith deathless Nirvana attained.”

..which seems to me exactly the same thing as you wrote in this blog, do you agree? But if this is the case, why did the Buddha always say that there is no self? Here is the answer, from the same article:

“When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech, and they are free from doubts.”

“When I have taught that the tathagata-garbha is empty, fools meditatively cultivate [the notion] that it is extinction [uccheda], subject to destruction and imperfect. The wise know that it is [actually] unchanging, stable and eternal.”

” … just as cow’s milk is delicious, so too is the taste of this [Nirvana] Sutra similar to that. Those who abandon the teaching given in this sutra concerning the tathagata-garbha are just like cattle. For example, just as people who intend to commit suicide will cause themselves extreme misery, similarly you should know that those ungrateful people who reject the tathagata-garbha and teach non-Self cause themselves extreme misery.”

Now, this part of your text I don’t understand:
“In Gnosticism, the complete elimination of the ego would be counterproductive, not to mention impossible, as this would only be possible outside of the physical World of Forms (i.e. when you’re dead). For this reason, the ego/Demiurge cannot be destroyed, only redeemed. It needs to understand itself as an aggregate of Archons and come to its own gnosis!”

Why would the complete elimination of the ego be counterproductive and impossible? The false ego that is. Could you explain further?

Thank you.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/selfheal/reichintro.htm

It’s an out of print book outlining most of the principles of this kind of body orientated therapy, written for the layman but not patronising. If you ignore the slightly dodgy 80’s graphic design it’s well worth a read ;-p.